Walker:Good. Washington DC is not a tall building city. We like it the way it looks now. Go across the river to Crystal City or Rosslyn if you have a tall building fetish.

Yep, I go to DC regularly, and the nice thing about it is that is has a great skyline. It is low and has a nice, wide sprawl that is wonderful to walk in the spring. In some sections, it still has a neighborhood feel because the buildings are still pretty small.

FTFA: "The broad sentiment against proposed changes contrasts with the position taken in recent years by Mayor Vincent C. Gray and his planning deputies, who have argued that the city needs to grow taller in places to accommodate growth and ease the housing crunch."

Oh, please. There are huge swaths of DC that are still open fields only a few miles from downtown. Develop those Wards, get resources (like a real grocery store) built for the residents who desperately need them, and get crime under control.

valkore:FTFA: "The broad sentiment against proposed changes contrasts with the position taken in recent years by Mayor Vincent C. Gray and his planning deputies, who have argued that the city needs to grow taller in places to accommodate growth and ease the housing crunch."

Oh, please. There are huge swaths of DC that are still open fields only a few miles from downtown. Develop those Wards, get resources (like a real grocery store) built for the residents who desperately need them, and get crime under control.

Or, make your buddies rich by rewriting the laws and building buildings the city doesn't need. Either way.

valkore:Oh, please. There are huge swaths of DC that are still open fields only a few miles from downtown. Develop those Wards, get resources (like a real grocery store) built for the residents who desperately need them, and get crime under control.

2wolves:Clean up the Anacostia River and you'll have water front building space. And a clean river.

ding ding ding. When you can see boarded-up shiatholes from the window of your luxury high-rise, the last thing the city needs is more luxury high-rises.

I might support taller buildings depending on the type of building. taller business structures will only make traffic/parking worse during the week as people commute in. taller residential structures in areas in need of "rejuvenation" would have the opposite effect. people would be able to live closer to the city, reducing traffic. but that means taking over "poor" neighborhoods and effectively kicks poor people out of their homes.

Building heights in DC are restricted, yes, but the limit is a function of the width of the roads adjacent to them. It has nothing to do with the Washington Monument: a number of old structures had to be grandfathered in when the law was passed, and the Washington Monument is indeed the tallest of them, but you could build something taller if the nearby roads were wide enough.

And given DC's traffic, I think there's still a real need for laws like this. I could see another variable being added to the function, though: if the building provides free parking in a garage underneath it, then its height limit could be raised as a function of how much parking it provides. But this would need to be done with an eye toward mitigating increased traffic around the building, so I suspect that the limit would need to increase very slowly, relative to the amount of parking provided.

Don't touch the building heights in downtown. It's nice to be able to see the sky in a city. But I wouldn't mind if they lifted the height restrictions by a few stories every few miles from the Capitol building so as you get further out you get more living space and still get a view of the skyline from the rooftops, sort of like stadium seating.

nmrsnr:Don't touch the building heights in downtown. It's nice to be able to see the sky in a city. But I wouldn't mind if they lifted the height restrictions by a few stories every few miles from the Capitol building so as you get further out you get more living space and still get a view of the skyline from the rooftops, sort of like stadium seating.

Building heights in DC are restricted, yes, but the limit is a function of the width of the roads adjacent to them. It has nothing to do with the Washington Monument: a number of old structures had to be grandfathered in when the law was passed, and the Washington Monument is indeed the tallest of them, but you could build something taller if the nearby roads were wide enough.

My understanding is that no building in DC can be taller than the Capitol Building...so yes, it has nothing to do with the height of the Washington Monument, but I don't think the street width has anything to do with it, either.

Ranger Joe:My understanding is that no building in DC can be taller than the Capitol Building...so yes, it has nothing to do with the height of the Washington Monument, but I don't think the street width has anything to do with it, either.

You are incorrect. From wiki:

Section 5 of the Height Act, as amended, provides in pertinent part:

(a) No building shall be erected, altered, or raised in the District of Columbia in any manner so as to exceed in height above the sidewalk the width of the street, avenue, or highway in its front, increased by 20 feet (6.1 m); but where a building or proposed building confronts a public space or reservation formed at the intersection of 2 or more streets, avenues, or highways, the course of which is not interrupted by said public space or reservation, the limit of height of the building shall be determined from the width of the widest street, avenue, or highway.

(b) No buildings shall be erected, altered, or raised in any manner as to exceed the height of 130 feet (40 m) on a business street or avenue . . . except on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue between 1st and 15th Streets Northwest, where an extreme height of 160 feet (49 m) will be permitted.

(c) On a residence street, avenue, or highway no building shall be erected, altered, or raised in any manner so as to be over 90 feet (27 m) in height at the highest part of the roof or parapet . . .

(d) The height of a building on a corner lot will be determined by the width of the wider street.

I thought part of it was also based on the geology of the area, wasn't DC a swamp before they drained it? I have no idea where I heard this but I was under the impression that because of that, buildings are more prone to damage in the case of an earthquake, and that was a factor in restricting height.

And for those who doubt me, when Japan had that big quake a few years back, there was a section of Tokyo that was built in similar circumstances (drained land) and there was very real concern about those buildings because the ground was acting like 'pudding' during the event. Wish I could remember which quake it was but I recall footage of chunks falling off of things.

nmrsnr:Ranger Joe:My understanding is that no building in DC can be taller than the Capitol Building...so yes, it has nothing to do with the height of the Washington Monument, but I don't think the street width has anything to do with it, either.

You are incorrect. From wiki:

Section 5 of the Height Act, as amended, provides in pertinent part:

(a) No building shall be erected, altered, or raised in the District of Columbia in any manner so as to exceed in height above the sidewalk the width of the street, avenue, or highway in its front, increased by 20 feet (6.1 m); but where a building or proposed building confronts a public space or reservation formed at the intersection of 2 or more streets, avenues, or highways, the course of which is not interrupted by said public space or reservation, the limit of height of the building shall be determined from the width of the widest street, avenue, or highway.

(b) No buildings shall be erected, altered, or raised in any manner as to exceed the height of 130 feet (40 m) on a business street or avenue . . . except on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue between 1st and 15th Streets Northwest, where an extreme height of 160 feet (49 m) will be permitted.

(c) On a residence street, avenue, or highway no building shall be erected, altered, or raised in any manner so as to be over 90 feet (27 m) in height at the highest part of the roof or parapet . . .

(d) The height of a building on a corner lot will be determined by the width of the wider street.

ladyfortuna:I thought part of it was also based on the geology of the area, wasn't DC a swamp before they drained it?

That's a common misconception -I believed it myself until just a few minutes ago- but as it turns out, it wasn't. There were one or two wetlands along the river, it's true, but they took up less than 1% of the area of the land that would become Washington (and Arlington). Most of the city wasn't actually built on a swamp at all.

Though it's an understandable mistake to make, what with the climate and all.

ladyfortuna:buildings are more prone to damage in the case of an earthquake

To be fair, buildings are generally more prone to damage around here because we don't get earthquakes very often, and so tend to use building materials that don't hold up well in the event of one (cf. National Cathedral, Washington Monument, and all the other massive stone structures that look pretty on postcards).

I oppose this mainly for aesthetic reasons. There is still plenty of space in DC. Also, I'm sad to see old historic buildings near my neighborhood being demolished to make way for new low/mid-rise condos. These things are ugly cubes of corrugated aluminum and glass. My house is 104 years old and it's freaking awesome. Luckily it's within a historic district so my neighborhood will continue to look cool and old-timey for the foreseeable future.

oakleym82:I oppose this mainly for aesthetic reasons. There is still plenty of space in DC. Also, I'm sad to see old historic buildings near my neighborhood being demolished to make way for new low/mid-rise condos. These things are ugly cubes of corrugated aluminum and glass. My house is 104 years old and it's freaking awesome. Luckily it's within a historic district so my neighborhood will continue to look cool and old-timey for the foreseeable future.

While older homes may be appealing from an aesthetic stand-point, they are also potentially death-traps. If not well-maintained, the cost of restoring or renovating them becomes astronomical, to the point where nobody could afford to do it, and the ones that could, wouldn't because their home would be well above market value making it virtually impossible, should they ever choose to sell, to recoup the money spent. Some things can be updated or fixed, but if you have structural issues, there isn't much you can do in those situations. A lot of those older homes also don't have well planned interiors and are not even remotely up to code.

the money is in the banana stand:oakleym82: I oppose this mainly for aesthetic reasons. There is still plenty of space in DC. Also, I'm sad to see old historic buildings near my neighborhood being demolished to make way for new low/mid-rise condos. These things are ugly cubes of corrugated aluminum and glass. My house is 104 years old and it's freaking awesome. Luckily it's within a historic district so my neighborhood will continue to look cool and old-timey for the foreseeable future.

While older homes may be appealing from an aesthetic stand-point, they are also potentially death-traps. If not well-maintained, the cost of restoring or renovating them becomes astronomical, to the point where nobody could afford to do it, and the ones that could, wouldn't because their home would be well above market value making it virtually impossible, should they ever choose to sell, to recoup the money spent. Some things can be updated or fixed, but if you have structural issues, there isn't much you can do in those situations. A lot of those older homes also don't have well planned interiors and are not even remotely up to code.

Perhaps. Several neighbors on my block have renovated the interiors while preserving the facade. I'm aware of the risks of living in an old building. I have several smoke and CO detectors, escape ladders, and a plan.

Also, watching these new condos go up I see they're mainly build of wood. Sprinklers protect property, not people.

Honestly, living so close to ground zero, another earthquake is not very high on my list of fears.

whizbangthedirtfarmer:Walker: Good. Washington DC is not a tall building city. We like it the way it looks now. Go across the river to Crystal City or Rosslyn if you have a tall building fetish.

Yep, I go to DC regularly, and the nice thing about it is that is has a great skyline. It is low and has a nice, wide sprawl that is wonderful to walk in the spring. In some sections, it still has a neighborhood feel because the buildings are still pretty small.

YES! This is why DC remains one of my favorite cities. And also why NYC is my least favorite city.

Good for DC! The district's character would be ruined if they don't prohibit tall buildings. Boston is a prime example of what happens. There may be taller buildings over in VA and MD, but this is beside the point.

BAMFinator:Charleston has a similar law, except nothing can be taller than the tallest church steeple.

True, but this only applies to the peninsular city. Tall buildings are allowed West Ashley and north of the Crosstown.

the money is in the banana stand:While older homes may be appealing from an aesthetic stand-point, they are also potentially death-traps. If not well-maintained, the cost of restoring or renovating them becomes astronomical, to the point where nobody could afford to do it, and the ones that could, wouldn't because their home would be well above market value making it virtually impossible, should they ever choose to sell, to recoup the money spent. Some things can be updated or fixed, but if you have structural issues, there isn't much you can do in those situations. A lot of those older homes also don't have well planned interiors and are not even remotely up to code.

Old homes that are in that poor of a condition are usually sold under market rates (in terms of $ per sqft.) and the owner has held onto the property for decades, so they still make out like a bandit when the sale is closed. There are a lot of buy/reno/flip sales in DC's "up and coming" neighborhoods because of this. Even if the interior is total crap, the exterior is built to last and the dwelling can be completely gutted and renovated.

oakleym82:Honestly, living so close to ground zero, another earthquake is not very high on my list of fears.

Uh, do you work for the Pentagon? Because nobody outside of the Pentagon would refer to the Pentagon as "ground zero".

oakleym82: Honestly, living so close to ground zero, another earthquake is not very high on my list of fears.

Uh, do you work for the Pentagon? Because nobody outside of the Pentagon would refer to the Pentagon as "ground zero".

No but it's pretty common knowledge. I grew up here and it was used by everyone I know to refer to the center of the Pentagon before "ground zero" moved to NYC after 9/11. Perhaps of less common knowledge is that the snack bar located in the courtyard of the Pentagon is jokingly referred to as "Cafe Ground Zero".

C0rf:ladyfortuna: buildings are more prone to damage in the case of an earthquake

To be fair, buildings are generally more prone to damage around here because we don't get earthquakes very often, and so tend to use building materials that don't hold up well in the event of one (cf. National Cathedral, Washington Monument, and all the other massive stone structures that look pretty on postcards).

Indeed... I was just looking at it from the foundation of the land they're built on, I was kind of leaving that part out. I used my spiffy new telephoto lens to take pictures of the cracks before they started repairing the Washington Monument, 10/11 when I got to visit. We also drove past several row houses that had caution tape around them and bits of masonry missing from the facades.

I think the concerns about the view of the city are overrated. Who is seeing it? The people from Rosslyn? In city, buildings aren't that tall, but they are bunched up enough that you can't really see much unless you can get high enough (so, basically, the Old Post Office). I don't imagine the law will change anytime soon, but I suspect that someday, there will be a big torus of skyscrapers around the city, which would probably be more disruptive to the skyline than if they were in the city.

06Wahoo:I think the concerns about the view of the city are overrated. Who is seeing it? The people from Rosslyn? In city, buildings aren't that tall, but they are bunched up enough that you can't really see much unless you can get high enough (so, basically, the Old Post Office). I don't imagine the law will change anytime soon, but I suspect that someday, there will be a big torus of skyscrapers around the city, which would probably be more disruptive to the skyline than if they were in the city.

Yeah... who cares about the views of DC...

/taken down the hill from Arlington house//yeah yeah, I know they're mostly dead there, it's still a nice view.